About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
the gridlock. but of course, harry reid caved. that's another story in itself. so nothing has really changed. all you have to do is look at the chuck hagel situation in the senate to see just how bad everything is right now. but i want you to imagine liberals, just imagine what it would be like if we had 60 senators like this. >> i'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial. that just seems wrong to me. >> it sure does. newly elected senator from massachusetts elizabeth warren is doing what she promised to do. she is ready to lead the way on accountability for the financial industry, and for good reason. you see, the federal reserve says the 2008 financial collapse cost this country 38.8% of its net worth. despite the massive fraud and recklessness of the banks, the number of executives prosecuted for this crisis zero. before today, there is no accountability. now, the frank/dodd financial regulation bill was watered down and not fully implemented. senator warren used her first banking committee hearing to take on the regulators who were supposed to be enforcing the
votes will be problems for harry reid and the senate? these are issues that are going to come over here at some point. don't you -- hold up the process if he's having trouble on these tough issues? >> the legislative process was designed to be inefficient and difficult. so that if congress were able to move a bill through both houses and could agree upon a bill, it would actually become a law. so at the start of every session there are always a number of issues that carry over from the prior session. and frankly there's a lot of scar tissue that carries over with a lot of these bills. it's up to congress to figure out where the common ground is and how to deal with it. let me make clear i don't like the sequester. i think it's taking a meat ax to our government. meat ax to many programs and will weaken our national defense. that's why i fought to not have the sequester in the first place. but the president didn't want to have to deal with the debt limit again before his re-election. it was the president and senate democrats who committed to working with us to get an outcome out of the s
, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, it has decided on sequestration the past year we have done nothing in the senate crime -- in the senate. we are not doing anything in the senate. so, harry, please take the president's proposal or come up with one of your own. put it on the floor and let's start voting. we have our fingerprint as republicans on this sequestration idea. thats the president's idea we come as the republican party agreed to it. we got in this mess together and we will have to get out together. mr. president, helped lead us. all like anyone else on this stage, you are the commander-in- chief. do you really want your legacy to be that you let the american congress into a deal that would destroy the military at the time it would need it the most? do you want to pivot to asia? how do you do that with 232 ships? when about iran acquiring nuclear capabilities? have you modernize the f-16 and the f-18? had you go deep into iran without the f-22 and the at-35 coming into being? our enemy would love this to happen here i'm sure iran is very supportive of sequestration. i
have barack obama who is a democrat, president of the united states. then we have harry reid who is the majority leader. so the democrats are in control of both. now, if you think back at what happened back in -- during the last bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. george bush was president of the united states and the democrats were a minority. same situation. so what happened? first of all, we had bolton come up, john bolton. same thing, subjected to a 60-vote margin. we had steve -- dirk kempthorne. all remember dirk kempthorne. there are a lot of people who did not approve of him. he was appointed by bush, a republican, and then when he came over here, the democrats didn't like him, they subjected him to a 60-vote margin. that wasn't a filibuster. this isn't a filibuster today. people are trying to say that and blame me as being the bad guy that's causing a filibuster. it's not the case at all. any more than it was the case back in the 2005-2006 and other times when we had a nominee that was put forth by president bush. it was objected to by the democrats. now, di
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)